Sunday, February 5, 2012

This commercial (H/T: Powerline) was originally made by George Soros' lapdog, MoveOn, to run during the Superbowl in 2004, but for various reasons (including its then very political slant), it did not make the cut.

My, my -- how times change. For some unfathomable reason, George Soros and MoveOn did not even consider submitting this commercial for the Superbowl ad competition this year. Please watch it, and along with me, wonder why -- are their particular bones of contention becoming increasingly irrelevant to what the rest of us can see is happening?

Here is the 30-second commercial that -- despite Soros' billions -- did not run in either 2004 or in 2012:

Meanwhile, here is a commercial (with Clint Eastwood) that did run this year. It implies that, under the Obama administration, Detroit and its automobile industry are about to launch a new "second half" initiative that will put the (Democratic) team on the scoreboard once again:

Who else but the Democrats under President Obama can claim to have turned GM and Chrysler around in these trying times? (Of course, the commercial does not mention Ford, which managed to survive the recession with its own capital and negotiated union contracts, no thanks to the President.)

And who else but the Democrats under Obama would choose to make this commercial the one they decided was best to run, instead of the one George Soros handed them in 2004?

I tell you Republicans out there
: you've got to get up early to gain a march on these Democrats.

3 comments:

Perhaps I'm unperceptive, but the Clint Eastwood Chrysler commercial does not seem to be about a second term for Obama. I don't know Eastwood's political views and I doubt that most viewers would know either.

To me, the ad seemed to be an inspirational message to have hope and work for a comeback.

(Obama is not the person that is going to inspire that comeback IMHO.)

My juxtaposing of the two ads was intended to poke fun at the Democrats -- that they could not re-run the first ad because it would embarrass Mr. Obama, but that they could identify with the second ad because it could be taken as an endorsement of the results of Mr. Obama's bailouts of both GM and Chrysler. In doing that, however, they would end up emphasizing how the bailouts have served mainly to keep GM and Chrysler alive, so that they could continue to pay union workers according to their elaborate contracts. But neither of those companies nor Mr. Obama has yet devised a means of going forward profitably in these recession/depression times while still adhering to those contracts.

You, seeing Clint Eastwood for what he meant to say, didn't fall for it. But Obama's campaign managers, wanting to hitch their candidate to an icon like Eastwood, did.

There is no place to hide. No one can reasonably say that the Clint Eastwood clip was not a campaign advertisement for BHO. The dastardly take-over of the two companies, Fiat-Chrysler and Government Motors resulted in the cancellation of all preferred shares of stock, thereby punishing those who had the least to do with the companies' failures. Preferred stock is that which is most frequently found in the "widows' and orphans'" portions of long-term, "ultra-secure" stocks designed to produce modest but sure dividends. One can check how many mutual funds are still in existence since the expropriation and subsequent cancellation of these shares of stock. The number of Mutual Funds have been reduced by almost 40% since the expropriation. The most innocent of the financial instruments were the ones most punished by this marxist administration. Clint Eastwood, as have I, perhaps has become a bit unclear in his thinking now, at this stage in his life. During the expropriations and subsequent delivery of the two corporations into the hands of extremely corrupt labour unions and the central government, Rowdy Yates knew that these were bad moves, and he said as much, frequently.

A Guide to This Site

This page will provide you with a convenient listing of posts by category. In order to use the features of this site, you need to check all the past posts in a given category, since each new post assumes a certain familiarity with what has gone before.

Subscribe

A Gentle Warning to Readers

This Weblog has a different purpose from that of---oh, say Instapundit. The topics here do not lend themselves to short, pithy treatment. Also, there are many legal colleagues in the audience; I include material that may appeal more to one who has been trained in that profession. So, be forewarned; this may not be easy reading. No apologies---some days you might just have to work harder! Should you have any complaints, first observe these preliminaries, and then post your specifics on the RantBoard.

Comment Policy

Good dialogue is fostered when people sign their own posts. I reserve the right to moderate all comments, again in the interests of a good dialogue, and I thank those who are minded to contribute to that goal. If you are having trouble posting a comment because of the registration requirements, please email me (see "About" in my Profile) and I will try to help.

A Gallimaufry of Weblogs

Listed below are the Weblogs I commend to your attention. A listing is not an endorsement of content. For an explanation of the groupings (by analogy to Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade"), please see this post, and this; the reference to "cannon" is not pejorative (although it may, depending on its character, be regarded as onomatopoetic). Authors who object to their listing here, either on specific grounds or no grounds at all, may contact me for correction or removal. (Removal is automatic after a month or so of inactivity.) I will also consider requests and recommendations to be added.Note: only the best of the conservative political blogs are listed here (under "Cannon Fodder", below). For political blogs on the left, those readers who lean toward such fare need no assistance in locating them, and they need no promotion here.